About forty Christmases ago I was absolutely delighted to open a slot car racing set from my parents. I feverishly set everything up, created a track reminiscent of Brands Hatch, and went to plug everything in, only to discover that I needed batteries to operate the controllers. This was Great Britain in the 1970s...

See it live. We use add_rvalue_reference_t to make t be of the correct reference type in each case. And "simulate" the argument deduction which would make obj_m { std::forward<T>(t) } resolve to initializing obj_m from the correct reference type.

I say "simulate" because it's important to understand the constructor argument for holder cannot be a forwarding reference because the constructor itself is not templated.

By the way, since you tagged c++17, we can also add a deduction guide to your example. If we define it as follows (with the feedback from T.C. incorporated):

It's fine according to the lookup rules. You see, when you write member access (obj.display();), the member display is looked up not just in the scope of the class and its base classes. Base class sub-objects are taken into consideration as well.

If the member being looked up is not static, since base class sub-objects are part of the consideration, and you have two sub-objects of the same type, there's an ambiguity in the lookup.

But when they are static, there is no ambiguity. And to make it perfectly clear, the C++ standard even has a (non-normative) example when it describes class member lookup (in the section [class.member.lookup])

The training will be in Cologne/Köln on 24.-27. April 2018 given by Nicolai Josuttis, the author of "The C++ Standard Library", "C++17 - The Complete Guide", and co-author of "C++ Templates - The Complete Guide".